Discussion Title: Should vaccine passports be mandatory?

1. Vaccine passports should be mandatory.
1.1. Con: Vaccine passports may increase levels of vaccine hesitancy.
1.1.1. Pro: Vaccine hesitancy that is [tied to anti-semitic conspiracy](https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/05/anti-vaccination-germany-anti-semitism/618777/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=atlantic-daily-newsletter&utm_content=20210503&silverid=%25%25RECIPIENT_ID%25%25&utm_term=The%20Atlantic%20Daily)(Germany is riddled with QAnon adherents, some of whom are anti-vaccination, and some people are using this pandemic to articulate their anti-Semitic beliefs. They might deny COVID-19 exists, then play it down, and eventually blame 5G and Jewish people for the pandemic.) often draws from an idea of the [deep state.](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2020/5/13/21219164/trump-deep-state-fbi-cia-david-rohde)(The term “deep state” is a way for both sides to describe parts of the government — or forces that interact with government — that aren’t elected or are beyond the conventional checks and balances of our system?) These people may be especially suspicious of a mandatory vaccine passport.
1.1.2. Con: Vaccine hesitancy may be fuelled by [poor messaging](https://www.statnews.com/2021/04/08/gen-z-hesitant-covid-19-vaccine/) for younger generations. A vaccine passport scheme may make them more likely to find out information.
1.1.2.1. Pro: Some Gen-Zers are not being vaccinated as they believe it is [only for the elderly.](https://www.advisory.com/en/daily-briefing/2021/04/26/vaccine-hesitancy)("We are hearing from folks that they are not worried about the vaccine, or it's more important for their grandparents to get vaccinated, or they don't know where to get vaccinated, they don't know when they'll be able to get vaccinated," Justin Atkins, national politics manager at the nonprofit NextGen America, said. "We have young folks \[who\] still believe they can't get vaccinated because it's something that's reserved only for the elderly.") A mandatory vaccine passport would encourage them to keep apace with vaccine rollout news.
1.1.2.2. Pro: In some nations, Gen Z has been [keen](https://www.portmangroup.org.uk/english-lead-the-return-to-the-pub-while-gen-z-move-from-generation-sober-to-generation-congregate/)(Gen-Z in particular have been seen to make an eager return to the pub. The youngest generation \(18-24\) are the most likely to have visited pubs and bars since they reopened, with over half \(51%\) visiting at least once, whilst the older generation are most likely to avoid pubs and bars, with 64% of those aged over 45 not having visited pubs and bars since they reopened.) to return to pubs and other drinking establishments when they opened. A mandatory vaccine passport may make them more likely to be vaccinated so they can continue to attend.
1.1.2.3. Con: The hesitancy stems from misinformation spreading across different platforms targeting different age groups in society.
1.1.2.3.1. Pro: There are different sources of misinformation in different countries, such as the media, news, social communication platforms which can further fuel the reluctance of an average citizen who may not understand the benefits of a vaccine entirely.
1.1.2.3.1.1. Pro: For example: countries like Pakistan, India have [WhatsApp](https://www.dw.com/en/pakistan-conspiracy-theories-hamper-covid-vaccine-drive/a-56853397) as their leading source of misinformation. Such apps are used by the majority of the country's population and that's where most of the unsubstantiated claims about vaccines are found.
1.1.2.3.1.2. Pro: There's misinformation regarding the pricing of the vaccine as well. Even though [COVID-19 vaccines are free in the United States, that message may not be clear to millions of Americans, especially the uninsured.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/debgordon/2021/04/16/uninsured-americans-are-half-as-likely-to-get-the-covid-19-vaccine-even-though-its-free-new-data-shows/?sh=3a42cd64766f)
1.1.2.3.1.3. Pro: Organizations such as the WHO and NHS have already launched plans to combat the [infodemic](https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/03/13/covid-19-older-adults-and-the-risks-of-misinformation/) that's spreading fake news and rumors about the vaccines and their aftermath, across all age groups.
1.1.2.3.2. Pro: -> See 1.1.2.3.1.3.
1.1.3. Con: In some groups, vaccine hesitancy is driven by their religious beliefs. A vaccine passport may not alter this.
1.1.3.1. Pro: According to a report published by Gallup Pakistan, [49% of the population](https://www.dw.com/en/pakistan-conspiracy-theories-hamper-covid-vaccine-drive/a-56853397) is reluctant to get vaccinated even if the vaccine is offered free of cost. Experts say that religious beliefs are one of the main factors responsible for people's mistrust of the vaccine.
1.1.3.1.1. Pro: [Some Pakistanis say the vaccine is "haram" \(forbidden in Islam\) due to false claims it contains pig gelatin and human fetus tissues.](https://www.dw.com/en/pakistan-conspiracy-theories-hamper-covid-vaccine-drive/a-56853397)
1.1.3.2. Pro: [A study earlier this year found Christian nationalists were far more likely to abstain from taking the COVID-19 vaccine.](https://theconversation.com/christian-nationalism-is-a-barrier-to-mass-vaccination-against-covid-19-158023)
1.1.3.3. Pro: Ultra-orthodox Jewish communities in Israel are highly [skeptical](https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2021/02/israel-ultra-orthodox-bedouin-arabs-coronavirus-vaccination.html)(The vaccination drive is encountering similar reluctance among the 12% ultra-Orthodox Jewish minority, which is less exposed to scientific and medical information and under the influence of its rabbis. One of the biggest vaccination opponents is Rabbi Amnon Yitzhak, who has even created “Virus TV,” a YouTube channel devoted to denying the coronavirus pandemic and the need for vaccines.\n\nAccording to Yitzhak, the many lockdowns over the past year and shuttering of the school system were designed to prevent Torah study and to “pervert the souls of the sagacious students.” One clip equates “vaccination” with the rhyme “assassination.”) of the vaccine. This stems partially from fears that lockdowns were imposed to reduce Torah study.
1.1.3.3.1. Con: The Israeli government and health ministry [convinced many ultra-Orthodox believers to take the vaccine](https://www.npr.org/2021/04/22/988812635/how-israel-persuaded-reluctant-ultra-orthodox-jews-to-get-vaccinated-against-cov); today more than 80% of the community has been vaccinated.
1.1.3.3.1.1. Pro: Many pregnant ultra-Orthodox women were hesitant to get vaccinated. After one of these women became infected with COVID-19 and lost her baby and subsequently her own life, a campaign was launched to get pregnant women to get vaccinated to honor her memory. The week after her death, one of Israel's leading HMO's saw [a 60% increase in pregnant women getting vaccinated](https://www.npr.org/2021/04/22/988812635/how-israel-persuaded-reluctant-ultra-orthodox-jews-to-get-vaccinated-against-cov).
1.1.3.3.2. Pro: An [Orthodox summer camp in New York has prohibited vaccinated attendees](https://www.sun-sentinel.com/florida-jewish-journal/fl-jj-summer-camp-orthodox-jews-new-york-vaccinated-not-invited-20210511-7qezofqr3rctxllf7v5ottzgo4-story.html) - both children and adult staff.
1.1.3.3.3. Con: There is significant Jewish pushback against anti-vaccination sentiment, even if it is from more liberal communities. For example, some American Rabbis have criticised vaccine skepticism generally as [avodah zora \[idol worship\].](https://www.vaccineconfidence.org/latest-news/usa-ultra-orthodox-anti-vaxxers-push-yeshivas-to-admit-unvaccinated-students)(“It’s a form of avodah zora \[idol worship\] to believe in this anti-vaccine myth that all the doctors have this hidden agenda and we’re getting payoffs,” said Rabbi Aaron Glatt, chief of infectious diseases at South Nassau Communities Hospital and a spokesperson for the Infectious Disease Society of America. “It’s almost its own religion.”)
1.1.3.3.4. Pro: Limiting ultra-orthodox Jewish communities from accessing society through vaccine passports is likely to confirm to them that society is attempting to lock them out of important aspects of life. This damages community relations.
1.1.3.4. Pro: Religious extremism in areas like [Northern Nigeria](https://impakter.com/role-religion-covid-prevention-response/) further fuel the mistrust of society towards getting the vaccine.
1.1.3.5. Con: In Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim-majority country, the Indonesian Ulema Council has [declared Sinovac's CoronaVac "holy and halal."](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-indonesia-vaccine/indonesian-clerics-declare-sinovacs-covid-19-vaccine-halal-idUSKBN29D16U)
1.1.3.5.1. Con: The Indonesian Ulema Council declared the [AstraZeneca vaccine "haram"](https://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory/indonesia-resumes-astrazenecas-covid-19-vaccine-76553203) for containing an enzyme called trypsin, which was derived from pigs.
1.1.3.5.1.1. Con: The ["haram" status of the AstraZeneca vaccine was not a blanket prohibition](https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/asia/indonesia-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-haram-permissible-islam-14444780) of the vaccine. The Council declared that due to the emergency situation and lack of alternatives, use of the vaccine was temporarily made permissible.
1.1.3.6. Con: Many religions have [exceptions](https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/cultural-perspectives-vaccination)(For example, the Catholic Church recognizes the value of vaccines and the importance of protecting individual and community health. It asserts, however, that its members should seek alternatives, when available, to vaccines that are made using cell lines derived from aborted fetuses.) to their laws in the case of vaccination. This means that vaccine hesitancy may stem less from religious belief and more from other demographic factors.
1.1.3.7. Con: [Christianaid](https://www.christianaid.org.uk/our-work/what-we-do/community-health), an NGO that provides healthcare, has posted a website where people can give thanks for their [vaccination](https://www.christianaid.org.uk/give/ways-donate/give-thanks-your-coronavirus-vaccine-messages). The integration of vaccines into prayer may discourage hesitancy.
1.1.4. Pro: [People are becoming more hesitant towards getting the second dose of the vaccine after receiving the first one.](https://health.clevelandclinic.org/why-its-important-to-get-your-second-covid-19-vaccine-dose/) This hesitancy may lead to reluctance towards getting the vaccine passport eventually.
1.1.4.1. Con: Not everyone needs to take the second dose of the vaccine.
1.1.4.1.1. Pro: There are cases where [only one vaccine is ok’d for older teens in America](https://khn.org/news/article/pfizer-vaccine-authorized-for-older-teens-also-hardest-to-manage-in-rural-america/).
1.1.4.1.1.1. Pro: Not having to wait for the second dose of the vaccine might encourage younger people to get the passport faster than the rest of the population, right after taking the first dose of the vaccine.
1.1.4.1.1.1.1. Pro: This will help increase the overall rates of vaccinations and reduce the risk of the virus in different countries.
1.1.4.1.1.1.2. Con: This information can create a false sense of urgency and impatience in the younger generation to get the first dose as fast as possible. This may lead to people not waiting for their turn.
1.1.4.1.1.1.2.1. Pro: In most countries like [Estonia](https://estonianworld.com/life/estonia-to-start-vaccinating-all-adults-against-covid-19-on-17-may/), younger people make up the last group of the population to get vaccinated, so they'd have to wait for their turn to get the first dose of the vaccine.
1.1.4.1.2. Pro: A recent Penn Study suggests that a [second dose is not necessary for COVID-19 survivors](https://www.inquirer.com/health/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccination-natural-immunity-one-shot-penn-20210416.html).
1.1.4.1.2.1. Con: The need for a second vaccine depends on the medical history and health of the COVID-19 survivor.
1.1.4.1.2.1.1. Pro: [For older people who might have been hospitalized for COVID-19 and recovered,](https://time.com/5951898/do-i-need-two-vaccine-doses/) their immune responses might not be as robust so they may need the second dose to bolster their protection.
1.1.4.1.2.2. Pro: [A study run by Susan Cheng](https://time.com/5951898/do-i-need-two-vaccine-doses/), director of the Institute for Research on Healthy Aging at Cedars-Sinai, suggests "it doesn’t necessarily mean that anyone who has had COVID-19 should skip the second dose of their vaccine if it’s recommended. It’s more about timing," she says. “If this pandemic lasts two years, and somebody had an infection two years ago, based on our data we can’t say whether they would be okay with one dose or two.”
1.1.4.1.2.3. Pro: Studies show that if [you've already had the virus, your immune response after one dose of the vaccine is likely to be better](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-17/covid-survivors-may-require-just-one-shot-of-a-two-dose-vaccine) than someone who's never been infected by the virus and had two doses of the vaccine.
1.1.4.1.3. Con: There's insufficient research and data supporting this argument. Different health centres have conducted different studies around the timing of vaccines, age and health of COVID-19 survivors, however there's no singular source of truth confirming this.
1.1.4.2. Pro: According to [CDC data](https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations), an estimated 5 million people received one dose of their vaccination but skipped the second dose. This is up [from 3% earlier](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7011e2.htm#contribAff) in the vaccine rollout.
1.1.4.2.1. Pro: [The reasons stated for people skipping their second dose](https://health.clevelandclinic.org/why-its-important-to-get-your-second-covid-19-vaccine-dose/) are currently speculative. Some incidents are likely due to scheduling mishaps or canceled appointments. The rest may be due to a variety of reasons: thinking one dose is fine, frustration after side effects from the first dose, or even a fear of side effects from the second dose.
1.1.5. Con: Some of those who have stated they would definitely not take the vaccine have acknowledged that they would if it was a [requirement](https://www.vox.com/2021/5/5/22419281/covid-19-vaccines-herd-immunity-hesitancy-anti-vaxxers)(Even the more resistant may not be that resistant: In the Kaiser Family Foundation’s surveys, more than 30 percent of the hard noes say they would take a vaccine if it were required.), as it may become with the implementation of vaccine passports.
1.1.6. Con: Lack of transparency in certain countries and recently reported cases of [corruption linked to vaccine rollout](https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-global-vaccine-rollout-means-heightened-corruption-risk-heres-what-to-know-51616796521) has led to greater hesitancy among people who already have doubts over the safety of vaccines.
1.1.6.1. Pro: There have been multiple cases reported in Brazil, where [the health workers have been accused of giving fake vaccinations with empty syringes to elderly people.](https://nationalpost.com/news/world/brazil-police-probe-reports-of-coronavirus-vaccine-shots-of-air)
1.1.6.2. Pro: There have been allegations of profiteering and other questionable practices surrounding the vaccines. Recently, a [Russian computer security firm, Kaspersky said, that a company researcher in Lagos, Nigeria, had found vaccination ampules selling for up to $1,200 on underground online marketplaces, when purchasing vaccine doses reportedly cost the U.S. government between $4 and $19.50.](https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-global-vaccine-rollout-means-heightened-corruption-risk-heres-what-to-know-51616796521)
1.1.6.3. Pro: According to a 2018 National Academies of Sciences [healthcare report](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK535653/), nearly half of global citizens think their country's healthcare system is corrupt.
1.1.6.4. Pro: The corruption risks involve vast expense and opaque procurement deals, carried out with lightning speed, in some cases [by governments with a history of corruption, and by pharmaceutical firms that have in the past paid fines in connection with alleged bribery schemes](http://It involves vast expense and opaque procurement deals, carried out with lightning speed, in some cases by governments with a history of corruption, and by pharmaceutical firms that have in the past paid fines in connection with alleged bribery schemes.).
1.1.6.4.1. Pro: Recently, [Zimbabwe’s health minister was arrested](https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-global-vaccine-rollout-means-heightened-corruption-risk-heres-what-to-know-51616796521) in connection with alleged corruption in buying COVID-19 medical supplies.
1.1.6.4.2. Pro: [At least five major pharmaceutical companies involved with COVID-19 vaccine production](https://www.barrons.com/articles/the-global-vaccine-rollout-means-heightened-corruption-risk-heres-what-to-know-51616796521) have previously been the subject of separate enforcement actions of the U.S. over the past decade.
1.1.6.4.2.1. Con: Nearly every pharmaceutical company that operates in the U.S. has had some sort of [government action taken against them](https://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/industry/pharmaceuticals).
1.1.6.5. Con: In [Guatemala](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/5/13/guatemala-discontent-grows-over-covid-vaccine-rollout-corruption), vaccine mismanagement has not lead to vaccine rejection, but rather insistence on improved administration in the form of protests.
1.1.6.6. Pro: -> See 1.1.6.4.2.
1.1.6.7. Con: [There are many stakeholders and corruption risks across the vaccine value chain](http://Stakeholders and corruption risks across the vaccine value chain), that may or may not be mitigated completely depending on various factors such as the role of authorities in different countries, and the role of distributors in the chain etc.
1.1.6.7.1. Pro: It is important to note that, [depending on the country’s context, there may be a range of actors involved in the acquisition, storage, transportation and distribution of vaccines, as well as influencing the targeting policy and prioritisation of risk groups.](https://www.u4.no/publications/mitigating-corruption-risks-in-covid-19-vaccine-rollout) These actors can be both licit and illicit.
1.1.6.7.2. Pro: In countries where corruption is already a big problem, it'll be hard to build the trust of its citizens who don't trust the past or existing authorities.
1.1.6.7.2.1. Pro: -> See 1.1.6.3.
1.1.6.7.3. Pro: In countries with poor quality health data, or where a large number of citizens lack formal identity documents, [it will be much easier for corruption to go undetected](https://www.u4.no/publications/mitigating-corruption-risks-in-covid-19-vaccine-rollout)(\(GTAI 2020\).).
1.1.6.8. Con: A significantly [higher number of people are willing to get vaccinated in lower-income countries](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7997650/)(One bright spot comes in the world's poorer countries. On average, 80.3 per cent of people in 10 low and middle-income countries said they would have a covid-19 vaccine when it became available, according to a study of 46,000 people, surveyed between June 2020 and January this year. That is a much greater proportion than in some high-income countries, such as the 64.6 per cent willing to get one in the US.\n\nThe average acceptance across the 10 countries masked differences ranging from 66.5 per cent in Burkina Faso and Pakistan to 96.6 per cent in Nepal. “I think it's good news, conditional on getting people to follow through with their intention,” says Mushfiq Mobarak at Yale University, an author on the study. “For the remainder, the data gave us some clues on the sort of messaging we should highlight. \[It is\] telling us they're concerned about safety and efficacy.”) compared to the US.
1.1.6.9. Con: The [US](https://hub.jhu.edu/2021/02/24/vaccine-acceptance-rate-falling-globally/)(Of five countries in the Americas, the data found, only the United States saw a decline in vaccine acceptance in late January \(from 69% to 65%\).) has a lower rate of vaccine acceptance than [China](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1124-9)(Countries where acceptance exceeded 80% tended to be Asian nations with strong trust in central governments \(China, South Korea and Singapore\).). China is ranked 78th on the [Corruption Perception Index](https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2020/index/nzl), whilst America is ranked 25th. It is not necessarily clear that corruption is linked to vaccine hesitancy.
1.1.7. Pro: Adoption of new ideas always comes after a certain period of resistance; however, with viruses like COVID-19 spreading so quickly, companies and governments should focus on creating better, more trustworthy, and rapidly effective global solutions for society.
1.1.8. Pro: While the vaccines themselves would remain optional, a mandatory vaccine passport could make people feel more pressured into getting vaccinated against their will.
1.1.9. Con: Vaccine hesitancy may have [roots in COVID-19 denialism](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/its-not-vaccine-hesitancy-its-covid-denialism/618724/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=atlantic-daily-newsletter&utm_content=20210503&silverid=%25%25RECIPIENT_ID%25%25&utm_term=The%20Atlantic%20Daily)(While a significant chunk of Americans profess to be uneasy about getting shots to prevent COVID-19, most come from the swath of the population that has tended to downplay the disease’s severity and to resist other measures to fight it, rather than the swaths that have resisted vaccines for other diseases.). This means that people have downplayed the severity of the pandemic. A vaccine passport may act as a [nudge](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nudge_theory#Definition_of_a_nudge) to encourage them to be vaccinated.
1.1.10. Pro: Vaccine hesitancy may come from [long term systemic medical malpractice](https://theconversation.com/many-black-americans-arent-rushing-to-get-the-covid-19-vaccine-a-long-history-of-medical-abuse-suggests-why-152368)(Black people are acutely aware of this history of racism in the medical establishment, and the ways it persists today on both an individual and a collective level. Stereotypes about Black patients, whether the result of explicit or implicit bias, continue to affect the care they receive and their medical outcomes. Again and again, when surveyed, Black Americans report that medical providers don’t believe them, won’t prescribe necessary treatments, including pain medication, and blame them for their health problems.) against certain demographics. This is likely to be worsened by mandatory vaccine passports.
1.1.10.1. Pro: In Pakistan, a [fake CIA vaccination programme](https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dpvkd/in-pakistan-legacy-of-fake-cia-vaccination-programs-leads-to-vaccine-hesitancy) drastically decreased the faith of the people in public health. The long term ramifications of this mean that Pakistanis fear being [monitored](https://www.vice.com/en/article/5dpvkd/in-pakistan-legacy-of-fake-cia-vaccination-programs-leads-to-vaccine-hesitancy)(The Pakistani Taliban banned polio vaccines in the country’s tribal areas, linking the ban to American drone strikes and the CIA’s prior use of vaccination programs for espionage purposes. After repeated attacks and assassination attempts on health workers administering vaccines—nine were shot dead in December 2012, another seven in January 2013—the United Nations suspended their polio eradication campaign in the country. In the years that followed, over 100 vaccinators were killed in targeted attacks.). Implementing vaccine passports may worsen this.
1.1.10.2. Pro: Though the hesitancy does not stem from medical malpractice, government distrust in [Hong Kong](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-05-09/unused-shots-pile-up-as-mistrust-blights-hong-kong-vaccine-drive)(With political distrust permeating through every sphere of Hong Kong life, some see a refusal to heed government calls to take the vaccine as a form of resistance -- particularly as Covid-19 restrictions and the national security law means forms of dissent have mostly been snuffed out.“I won’t take the vaccine, because my friends and I just don’t want to follow any instructions or recommendations from the government,” said a 16-year-old student who gave her surname as Chau. “I don’t trust anything from them. We’ll do our best to resist and fight against the government in the way we still can.”) fuels low rates of vaccination.
1.1.10.3. Con: Regions like [Africa](https://impakter.com/role-religion-covid-prevention-response/) where people have had to face many life-threatening diseases such as Ebola - showed the highest level of trust in vaccination as the best method of COVID-19 prevention.
1.1.10.3.1. Con: -> See 1.1.3.4.
1.1.10.4. Con: It seems that more women than men are receiving COVID-19 [vaccinations](https://khn.org/news/article/gender-vaccine-gap-more-women-than-men-vaccinated-against-covid/). This is despite widespread care [disparities](https://qz.com/1781973/how-the-healthcare-system-works-against-women/) that structurally harm women.
1.2. Con: Vaccine passports may face prohibitive logistical challenges that reduce their efficacy.
1.2.1. Con: As vaccine passports become less technologically complex they become easier to [fraudulently produce.](https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-vaccine-passports-idUSL8N2M05AB) This trades off accessibility versus efficacy.
1.2.1.1. Pro: People are concerned over the [vaccine passports being sold on the dark web.](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-56489574)
1.2.2. Pro: Minimizing data sharing is not a guarantee protecting the app against hacking or other scams.
1.2.2.1. Con: If an app contains less financially sensitive data then it may be less of a target for hacks or other scams such as phishing.
1.2.2.2. Pro: Stored information like emails and passwords may be enough to encourage hacking attempts. This is because lots of people [reuse their passwords](https://www.comparitech.com/blog/information-security/password-statistics/#:~:text=Only%2035%20percent%20use%20a%20different%20password%20for%20every%20account.&text=This%20is%20corroborated%20by%20other,passwords%20for%20their%20personal%20accounts.)(Another 2019 Google study in conjunction with Harris Poll found that 13 percent of people reuse the same password across all accounts, and a further 52 percent use the same one for multiple \(but not all\) online accounts. Only 35 percent use a different password for every account.), which means one leak can end up revealing a lot of sensitive data.
1.2.2.3. Pro: If hackers can find out someone's vaccine status e.g. unvaccinated or half vaccinated, then they could target those users with [phishing](https://www.csoonline.com/article/2117843/what-is-phishing-how-this-cyber-attack-works-and-how-to-prevent-it.html) attempts using a [lure](https://conversation.which.co.uk/scams/scam-nhs-covid-vaccine-text-message/) of another vaccine appointment.
1.2.2.3.1. Pro: Hackers could also use the information to bombard unvaccinated users with anti-vaccine propaganda.
1.2.3. Con: The limitations that reduce vaccine passports efficacy, also limit their potential for abuse by overzealous states.
1.2.4. Pro: The [right to privacy](https://www.daslaw.co.uk/blog/the-right-to-privacy#:~:text=The%20Human%20Rights%20Act%20of,private%20life%20and%20information%20protected.)(The Human Rights Act of 1998 brought English law into line with the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Convention contains an explicit declaration of the right of an individual to have their private life and information protected.) may be [harmed](https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/03/01/1020154/israels-green-pass-is-an-early-vision-of-how-we-leave-lockdown/)(The green pass is also a potential privacy nightmare, says Orr Dunkelman, a computer science professor at Haifa University and a board member of Privacy Israel. He says the pass reveals information that those checking credentials don’t need to know, such as the date a user recovered from covid or got a vaccine. The app also uses an outdated encryption library that is more vulnerable to security breaches, Orr says. Crucially, because the app is not open source, no third-party experts can vet whether these concerns are founded.) through vaccine passports. As with contact-tracing apps, there is valid concern that a vaccine passport app may pass on more data about their users than absolutely necessary.
1.2.4.1. Con: The right to privacy is not an [absolute right.](https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/civil-rights/human-rights/when-can-a-public-authority-interfere-with-your-human-rights/) It is fine to trade-off some loss of privacy if it helps to keep people safe.
1.2.4.1.1. Con: Some countries, like China, [use safety as an excuse](https://time.com/5735411/china-surveillance-privacy-issues/) to invade the privacy of individuals whenever deemed necessary.
1.2.4.1.2. Pro: The widespread of CCTV cameras in public areas keeps people safe whilst reducing their privacy.
1.2.4.1.2.1. Con: CCTV cameras actually deter very little crime and are generally quite [poor at helping investigators solve crimes](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/jun/26/politics.ukcrime).
1.2.4.1.2.1.1. Con: CCTV cameras could make people feel safer, even if it isn't proven by the data. Being at ease mentally has benefits as well.
1.2.4.1.2.1.1.1. Pro: The "halo effect" is a phenomenon that makes the area surrounding CCTV cameras, but not within direct eyesight of the cameras themselves, safer by association.
1.2.4.1.2.1.1.1.1. Pro: The area within 500 feet and 1,000 feet of a CCTV camera cluster saw a [statistically significant reduction in crime](https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/27556/412403-evaluating-the-use-of-public-surveillance-cameras-for-crime-control-and-prevention_1.pdf) in three Baltimore neighborhoods.
1.2.4.1.2.1.1.1.2. Con: [The "halo effect" may be short-lived](https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/27556/412403-evaluating-the-use-of-public-surveillance-cameras-for-crime-control-and-prevention_1.pdf)(For all aggregated crime, some of\nthe benefit in the target area spanned both 500 and 1000 feet buffers in the first 12 months. However, over time,\nthe benefit was confined to the 500-ft buffer and by 18 months post-implementation, crime increased in the 1000-ft buffer.). In one documented example, it took around 12 months for the effect to diminish in the area surrounding CCTV camera clusters; by 18 months, crime had begun to rise again within 1,000 feet.
1.2.4.1.2.1.1.2. Pro: The positive mental gains from believing you're safe around CCTV cameras could help people become more confident walking around at night.
1.2.4.1.2.1.1.2.1. Con: The confidence gained from CCTV cameras could also cause people to become overconfident and walk through dangerous areas that should be avoided at all costs.
1.2.4.1.2.1.1.3. Con: [CCTV cameras could cause a false sense of security](https://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/surveillance-cameras-and-crime/), making people even more vulnerable than before.
1.2.4.1.2.1.2. Pro: Even when CCTV is sophisticated, it may be significantly [hampered](https://restofworld.org/2021/mexico-city-security-theater/) by other issues with the criminal justice system.
1.2.4.1.2.1.3. Pro: CCTV can be used by employers to [clamp down](https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=c28dd695-f38a-4841-8369-e3b2f7535395)(The case arose in the background of a security investigation by Our Lady’s Hospice and Care Services \(“OLHCS”\) into graffiti on the walls of a staff room – graffiti which could have indicated terrorist activity. A CCTV camera was located in the premises, beside a sign indicating that “images are recorded for the purposes of health and security and crime prevention”, and footage from that camera was reviewed. OLHCS noted from this footage that Mr Doolin had used the break room on a number of occasions when he was not authorised to do so. This led to the commencement of a disciplinary process concerning the alleged taking of unauthorised breaks, and Mr Doolin was subsequently sanctioned.) on their employees for productivity purposes, instead of addressing crimes.
1.2.4.1.2.1.4. Pro: A Chicago city spokesperson was quoted as saying that CCTV cameras helped solve 4,500 crimes over a four-year period. Yet, given the number of crimes that occurred during that same period, [CCTV cameras only helped solve half of a percent of crimes committed](https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/ct-xpm-2013-05-06-chi-how-useful-are-surveillance-cameras-20130506-story.html).
1.2.4.1.2.1.5. Pro: [Only one in five cameras on average ever actually solves a crime](https://www.chicagotribune.com/opinion/ct-xpm-2013-05-06-chi-how-useful-are-surveillance-cameras-20130506-story.html).
1.2.4.1.2.2. Pro: CCTV is an [effective](https://whatworks.college.police.uk/toolkit/Pages/Intervention.aspx?InterventionID=1)(Review 1 estimated that overall, for every 100 crimes, an average of 16 crimes were prevented with CCTV \(based on 41 studies\) and specifically for vehicle crime, for every 100 crimes, an average of 26 crimes were prevented \(based on 22 studies\). There was no evidence of a backfire effect \(where crime increases\) across the evaluations reviewed. \n\nHow strong is the evidence?\nThis evidence is taken from a systematic review covering 41 studies, which demonstrated a high quality design in terms of having a transparent and well-designed search strategy, featuring a valid statistical analysis, sufficiently assessing the risk of bias in the analysis and considering the validity of the way outcomes are measured and/or combined.) crime deterrent in certain settings like car parks.
1.2.4.1.2.3. Con: CCTV cameras may be [abused](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/jun/26/politics.ukcrime)(But the question really isn't whether cameras reduce crime; the question is whether they're worth it. And given their cost \(£500 m in the past 10 years\), their limited effectiveness, the potential for abuse \(spying on naked women in their own homes, sharing nude images, selling best-of videos, and even spying on national politicians\) and their Orwellian effects on privacy and civil liberties, most of the time they're not. The funds spent on CCTV cameras would be far better spent on hiring experienced police officers.) and used to spy on people, reducing people's safety.
1.2.4.1.2.4. Con: There is some evidence that [CCTV simply displaces crimes](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1748895809102554) - that is, CCTV doesn't deter crime, it causes crimes that would occur either way to shift into a different area.
1.2.4.1.2.5. Pro: In South Korea, the introduction of CCTV cameras caused a [47.4% reduction in robberies and theft](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1756061612000055) in the areas covered by the cameras. In areas that continued without CCTV coverage, there was no change in the amount of crimes committed.
1.2.4.2. Pro: Different country policies and regulations, such as GDPR concerns, could hinder the process and development of vaccine passports.
1.2.4.2.1. Pro: There is no consensus regarding the acceptability of a vaccine passport; each country makes their own rules. Iceland, for example, had planned to [reopen without accepting the US CDC white card](https://thepointsguy.com/news/iceland-remains-closed-to-americans/), before [backtracking](https://thepointsguy.com/news/vaccinated-travel-to-iceland/).
1.2.4.3. Con: Depending on how the app is designed, data sharing can be minimised. An example of this is the [New York application.](https://www.fastcompany.com/90624276/designing-for-uncertainty-how-ibm-created-a-vaccine-passport)(The pass is a QR code, not your literal medical record that could be hacked or stolen. And the app doesn’t share any personal information that’s superfluous to verifying your identity. “There are some things that add an extra layer of security. Those were important components for this pass. There were other things . . . that are unnecessary for anyone at a venue to know,” says Webber. “We optimized for minimum viable information.”)
1.2.5. Pro: -> See 1.2.4.2.
1.2.6. Con: Data transfer concerns can be easily [minimised.](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/04/12/985927333/would-you-use-an-app-to-verify-your-vaccine-status-the-idea-is-here-to-stay)(Given concerns about privacy, New York's health pass is built on blockchain technology, which uses encryption to query a vaccine database. "There is no exchange of personal information," Paydos says. "All the information remains with the state." So, once people sign up to use the pass and want to show certification, the electronic system can verify their status without transferring their private information.)
1.3. Pro: Vaccine passports allow life to return to normality faster than without their implementation.
1.3.1. Con: [More than 100 countries](https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/02/14/966418960/you-think-the-u-s-has-vaccine-issues-130-countries-havent-even-started-vaccinati) haven't even administered a single vaccine dose. Without the possibility to get vaccinated, they have no chance of getting a vaccine passport.
1.3.1.1. Pro: The disparities are wide. While [close to 100% of Gibraltar's population, for instance, have already been vaccinated,](https://www.dw.com/en/gibraltar-slowly-returns-to-pre-pandemic-normality/a-57106164) countries like Nicaragua are still waiting to receive their first doses of vaccine.
1.3.1.2. Con: This claim operates off of a [misconception](https://www.forbes.com/sites/geoffwhitmore/2021/04/09/what-is-a-vaccine-passport-and-will-we-need-one/?sh=3cc419c353e4)(How Vaccine Passports Work\nHere is a quick step-by-step look at how vaccine passports function:\n1. Download passport app to your mobile phone\n2. Create an account with biometric data \(thumbprint or face id\)\n3. Upload negative test results and vaccination dates\n4. Scan passport QR code at travel checkpoints or public venues) of vaccine passports. They can also record when you last received a negative PCR test.
1.3.1.3. Pro: As of May 11th, [over 1.2 billion vaccine doses](https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations?country=OWID_WRL) have been administered. At minimum this means that at least 0.6 billion people have received a vaccine, which is approximately 10% of the world's [adult](http://This statistic shows the proportion of selected age groups of the world population in 2020, by region. As of mid-2020, about 26 percent of the world's population were under 15 years old.) [population.](https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/)
1.3.2. Pro: Vaccine passports make it easier to open non-essential facilities safely.
1.3.2.1. Con: With many [strains](https://www.forbes.com/sites/williamhaseltine/2021/05/06/vaccines-vs-variants-three-new-studies-show-the-effectiveness-of-pfizer-and-moderna-vaccines/?sh=36531fe05c33) of COVID-19 now circulating, vaccine passports may give a false sense of security, as people over-estimate their immunity. This would mean that non-essential facilities are open too soon.
1.3.2.2. Pro: Vaccine passports are already implemented in Israel in the form of '[green passes](https://corona.health.gov.il/en/directives/green-pass-info/)'. This has allowed them to [reopen](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/israel-green-pass-covid-passport-england-b1826771.html) cinemas, gyms, sporting venues, and other cultural events.
1.3.2.2.1. Pro: Gyms are [risky](https://www.healthline.com/health-news/why-working-out-at-your-gym-indoors-is-a-terrible-idea-right-now#Heavy-breathing-adds-to-spread) to open without vaccine passports. A green pass lets them reopen, which means that people can reap the health benefits of working out safely.
1.3.2.2.2. Con: -> See 1.2.
1.3.2.2.3. Pro: In Israel, [unvaccinated patrons wishing to visit places](https://www.timesofisrael.com/govt-said-planning-heavy-limits-on-leisure-to-those-who-dont-vaccinate/) with higher COVID-19 transmission risk and access strictly for "green pass" holders can simply present a negative COVID-19 test from less than 48 hours prior to the time of entry.
1.3.2.2.4. Con: Not all countries are as advanced as Israel to develop a mechanism to facilitate their residents to apply and get this passport online. Developing this infrastructure might be costly and time consuming for countries who still need their residents to walk in an office and then apply or register for their passports, ID's or even bank accounts.
1.3.2.2.5. Con: Though the green pass is a good idea, in practice it is [not always enforced.](https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/in-israel-vaccine-passports-are-already-redundant)(Officially, it’s the responsibility of businesses and venues to ensure that only those with the passes are allowed in. ‘No one told me how I was supposed to police the green passes,’ one Tel Aviv bar owner told me. ‘I’m leaving it to my customers. I hope no one who hasn’t been vaccinated comes in but it’s not my responsibility.’ Police and local authority inspectors have been discreetly ordered not to enforce the regulations either.) This reduces the efficacy of vaccine passports.
1.3.2.2.5.1. Con: There are innumerous rules and regulations that go unforced. This is not a reason to keep from implementing them.
1.3.2.3. Con: It is [not certain](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00728-2)(The COVID-19 vaccines developed by Moderna and Pfizer–BioNTech, for example, are extremely effective at preventing symptomatic disease, but it is still unclear whether they protect people from becoming infected, or from spreading the virus to others.) yet that vaccines stop COVID-19 transmission.
1.3.2.3.1. Con: Studies have found that vaccinated individuals are [significantly less likely](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-briefs/fully-vaccinated-people.html) to transmit COVID-19.
1.3.3. Con: As there are asymmetries of vaccine uptake, vaccine passports may discriminate against certain demographics.
1.3.3.1. Con: There are many [schemes](https://www.rsph.org.uk/our-work/policy/vaccinations/moving-the-needle-promoting-vaccination-uptake-across-the-life-course.html) to increase vaccine access and decrease hesitancy. These concerns are likely to decrease with time.
1.3.3.2. Con: Damages to certain demographics are [already asymmetrical](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0003134820973356). Vaccine passport asymmetries won't help urban BIPOC as much as urban whites, but urban BIPOC are better off with a vaccine passport system with low access compared to no system and no access. This is because the system may mitigate some of the prior asymmetries.
1.3.3.3. Pro: Certain populations of people, especially BIPOC, don't have the same access to vaccines as many of their white counterparts. A vaccine passport would discriminate against the [lack of vaccine availability](https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/04/26/989962041/why-black-and-latino-people-still-lag-on-covid-vaccines-and-how-to-fix-it)(While overall vaccination rates in Philadelphia are beginning to slow in the last couple of weeks, providers there — and echoed nationally — say the disparity between racial groups isn't the result of people who are hesitant to get vaccinated. Instead, they say barriers such as the location of vaccination sites, online-only sign-ups, appointment scheduling, transportation and other planning and access issues are to blame.) in these communities.
1.3.3.3.1. Con: While lack of access to vaccines is part of the issue, some BIPOC communities distrust vaccines in general because of government abominations like the [Tuskegee Study](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/tuskegee-study-medical-distrust-research/487439/). Some BIPOC have [decided not to get vaccinated](https://www.npr.org/2021/02/16/967011614/in-tuskegee-painful-history-shadows-efforts-to-vaccinate-african-americans) against COVID-19 as a result.
1.3.3.3.1.1. Con: Once the vaccines were proven safe for everyone including BIPOC, [a lot of the fear dissipated](https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/03/12/976172586/little-difference-in-vaccine-hesitancy-among-white-and-black-americans-poll-find) and many BIPOC became willing to get the COVID-19 vaccine.
1.3.3.3.2. Pro: Some vaccinations have very [precise](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(21\)00306-8/fulltext#seccestitle100)(Several of the leading vaccine candidates require ultra-cold chains and have short shelf-lives once they are removed from storage. The mRNA vaccine by BioNTech and Pfizer, for instance, must be administered within 5 days of leaving ultra-low temperature conditions \(–70°C\);55 similar, if less extreme, requirements apply to Moderna's mRNA vaccine.) conditions for their storage. This means that they less likely to be distributed in areas with limited infrastructure. This increases the likelihood of vaccine delays as the communities affected have to wait for alternatives which may have [production limitations](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/13/vaccine-supply-is-what-is-holding-back-jabs-programme-says-matt-hancock) or [issues](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/31/world/johnson-and-johnson-vaccine-mixup.html).
1.3.3.3.2.1. Pro: In Israel, [Bedouin](https://www.al-monitor.com/originals/2021/02/israel-ultra-orthodox-bedouin-arabs-coronavirus-vaccination.html)(Access is the main reason for the low rate of inoculation among the Bedouins, many of whose villages do not have medical clinics and/or sufficient infrastructure of roads, power and water to enable vaccination programs. The low vaccination rate is also being driven by the high degree of fake news about the inoculations that is deterring many in Arab society.) communities have low rates of vaccination because they lack infrastructure \(roads/power/water\) and medical clinics.
1.3.4. Con: [The exact validity of COVID-19 vaccines is still not determined](https://www.healthline.com/health-news/how-long-does-immunity-from-covid-19-vaccination-last#Some-cases-still-expected-among-vaccinated-people), some say it lasts six months or more. But, the lack of confirmation makes people more reluctant towards getting a vaccine in the first place.
1.3.4.1. Pro: -> See 1.3.2.1.
1.3.4.2. Pro: With a lack of information around the validity of the vaccine, it's hard to determine the validity of the passport itself.
1.3.4.2.1. Pro: Depending on the physical or digital nature of the passport, it can be difficult for people to renew their vaccine passports again and again if they wish to.
1.3.4.2.2. Con: The EU has determined that the validity of their "Digital Green Certificate" is until the World Health Organization \(WHO\) "[declares the end of the COVID-19 international health emergency.](https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_21_1181)"
1.3.4.3. Pro: People might be reluctant to take the vaccine if they know the vaccine doesn't give immunity for a longer period.
1.3.4.3.1. Pro: The virus is mutating at a fast pace, so the vaccine someone might've taken six months ago might not be effective to contain a new strain of the virus.
1.3.4.4. Con: The vaccine offers a solution for the time being. With further research and clinical trials, there will be more conclusive results and information around the topics of validity and treatment.
1.3.4.5. Con: Vaccine passports may encourage vaccination in the instance that they only last six months. Six months may be a short period of time for a vaccine to last, but it would still give quite a lot of access to normal life in the mean time.
1.3.5. Pro: Without confirmation of vaccination, countries cannot risk re-opening their borders to tourists.
1.3.5.1. Con: Countries need to be equally able and willing to administrate and dispense vaccine passports in order to become a universal norm.
1.3.5.1.1. Pro: Everyone's adapting to the new norms of society and becoming more acceptable towards the use of vaccines, which is why this might be the perfect time to introduce vaccine passports and make use of the change in user behavior present at large in our society right now.
1.3.5.1.2. Con: At the moment, it's difficult to understand what rules are followed by which countries and airlines.
1.3.5.1.2.1. Pro: There are some countries like Thailand, [Maldives](https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/maldives-travel-covid-19/index.html) who are opening travel again and require negative PCR tests for travelers to enter. They don't state a particular requirement to have the vaccination at all.
1.3.5.1.2.1.1. Con: As mass vaccination isn't yet widespread across the globe, these countries could be waiting for higher adhesion in order to require visitors to have been vaccinated.
1.3.5.1.2.1.2. Con: The ease of implementing vaccine passports is especially apparent in some countries like Georgia, which has already begun to [accept vaccine cards](https://mfa.gov.ge/MainNav/CoVID-19-sakitkhebi/sazgvris-kvetis-regulaciebi.aspx?lang=en-US) as a valid method of bypassing the need for a negative PCR test at immigration.
1.3.5.1.2.1.2.1. Con: Blindly implementing a protocol accepting vaccine passports is somewhat risky as nobody knows for sure [how well the vaccines work against the different variants](https://www.statnews.com/2021/05/13/vaccines-work-variants-complicated/), for [how long people are protected](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html)(We don’t know how long protection lasts for those who are vaccinated. What we do know is that COVID-19 has caused very serious illness and death for a lot of people. If you get COVID-19, you also risk giving it to loved ones who may get very sick. Getting a COVID-19 vaccine is a safer choice.\n\nExperts are working to learn more about both natural immunity and vaccine-induced immunity. CDC will keep the public informed as new evidence becomes available.), and if [vaccinated people can still spread the virus](https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/dec/17/8-facts-and-4-unknowns-about-coronavirus-vaccines/).
1.3.5.1.2.1.2.1.1. Con: There is constant monitoring for the efficacy of vaccines against new variants. Restricting freedom, by enforcing quarantines or continued lockdowns, prior to information supporting that restriction would be illegitimate.
1.3.5.1.2.1.2.1.2. Con: It is unfair to say that vaccine passports are a blind implementation of protocol. Contact tracing, testing, lockdowns, and personal quarantines if you're exposed to infection through a close contact all remain feasible policies.
1.3.5.1.2.1.2.1.3. Pro: If people act with the belief that vaccinations are perfect, as may be indicated through the universal adoption of vaccine passports, then infections are far more likely to occur, causing great risk to others.
1.3.5.1.2.1.2.2. Pro: [Cyprus has also re-opened](https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexledsom/2021/05/05/cyprus-latest-eu-country-to-open-to-vaccinated-travelers-on-may-10/) to anyone who has received both doses \(if necessary\) of an EU-approved vaccine.
1.3.5.1.2.2. Pro: Most travellers or those have who tried going back and forth to their home countries during covid phase, have already become used to taking PCR tests before travel.
1.3.5.1.2.3. Pro: Airport authorities and border guards have also experienced flexibility in accepting negative PCR tests as per current rules of travelling abroad to many countries.
1.3.5.1.2.4. Pro: Even [countries within the EU](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56522408) have different mechanisms and plans for integrating the vaccine passports into society.
1.3.5.1.2.5. Con: It is the responsibility of each traveler to access the immigration page of the individual country they're trying to enter in order to fully understand what's required.
1.3.5.1.2.6. Con: Some airlines, like Qatar Airways, have set up special sections of their website to [update travelers with entry requirements](https://www.qatarairways.com/en/visa-and-passport-requirements.html) in the country they're looking at visiting.
1.3.5.1.3. Con: Countries need to do what they believe is best for themselves, regardless of what other countries do. If some countries decide not to create or administer vaccine passports, that could dash the hopes of their citizens to be able to travel, but it is their sovereign right to determine that for themselves.
1.3.5.1.4. Pro: Asymmetries in vaccine passport acceptance may lead to tit for tat behaviour. For example, [Hungary](https://indianexpress.com/article/research/from-smallpox-to-covid-19-the-history-of-vaccine-passports-and-how-it-impacts-international-relations-7274871/)(These discrepancies could prove challenging for countries such as Hungary which has largely been dependent on China-made vaccines. Under the Digital Green Pass scheme Hungarians travelling within the EU will still likely be reliant on the result of negative PCR tests to enter other countries. On that matter, Minister of the Hungarian Prime Minister’s Office, Gregele Gulyás, stated that “on the basis of reciprocity Hungary will not accept the certificates of countries which do not accept those of Hungary.” Sentiments such as these, while largely to be expected, will compromise the legitimacy of the EU, and undermine the very tenants of its existence.) is discussing not accepting the vaccine passports of nations that do not accept Hungary's. This would make citizens reliant on negative PCR tests in order to enter.
1.3.5.2. Con: -> See 1.2.4.2.1.
1.3.5.3. Pro: The EU Commission has proposed a ["Digital Green Certificate"](https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_21_1181) as a temporary vaccine passport equivalent for citizens to move about within the EU.
1.3.5.4. Pro: Countries aren't ready to open borders for all modes of transport. Governments are trying to mitigate risk by allowing only specific modes of entry into their countries at the moment.
1.3.5.4.1. Pro: Example: Travellers can now take flights back and forth between Estonia and Sweden, however, [travel via ferry may not happen until 2022.](https://news.err.ee/1608204925/tallinn-stockholm-ferry-may-not-reopen-until-2022#:~:text=Tallink%20has%20said%20if%20the,to%20passengers%20since%20March%202020.)
1.3.5.4.2. Pro: These temporary measures will help maintain check and balance of virus spread, especially monitor risks directly linked to international travel.
1.3.5.5. Pro: Many countries, like [Australia](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-australia/australia-largely-free-of-covid-19-in-no-hurry-to-reopen-borders-pm-idUSKBN2C502I) and New Zealand, are able to keep their citizens safer with their borders closed until they are able to vaccinate their own populations and proof of vaccination becomes available for visitors.
1.3.5.5.1. Con: Keeping the borders closed for too long could create a number of collateral effects, including isolating the country from the rest of the world and damage to international commerce.
1.3.5.6. Pro: Different countries are vaccinating their populations with different vaccines and at different rates. Some of the brands aren't even approved in other countries. As such, someone who received an unapproved brand of vaccine in one country could be prohibited from entering another country, as if they hadn't taken the vaccine at all.
1.3.5.6.1. Pro: -> See 1.3.1.
1.3.5.6.2. Con: Vaccine approvals can take a while. Yet-to-be-approved vaccines could be approved at a later stage.
1.3.5.6.3. Pro: Vaccine effectiveness also varies based on the brand. Some are more than [95% effective, while others are just 50-60% effective](https://www.biospace.com/article/comparing-covid-19-vaccines-pfizer-biontech-moderna-astrazeneca-oxford-j-and-j-russia-s-sputnik-v/). Some countries will not approve vaccines ineffective below a certain threshold, and therefore may never recognize those individuals as having been properly vaccinated.
1.3.5.6.4. Pro: Political history plays a role in the acceptance of different vaccines around the world. Such as a resident of one country might be more willing to trust a vaccine made by their country's ally, than if it's not.
1.3.5.6.4.1. Pro: We've seen a similar trend with how the Sputnik [vaccines made in Russia caused a political division in Europe.](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56735931)
1.3.5.6.4.2. Con: For many people willing to take the vaccine, what matters more is not the location of the vaccine creation, but the aftermath of the vaccine dose.
1.3.5.6.4.3. Pro: Political and economic sanctions could prevent certain countries from receiving specific brands of the vaccine. In addition, some governments could wholesale ban all vaccines produced domestically by a specific political adversary.
1.3.5.6.4.3.1. Con: This type of political squabbling could prevent innocent people from being vaccinated.
1.3.5.6.5. Pro: There's no guarantee that everyone will be vaccinated around the same time. Even within the European Union the disparities are wide. Every third Hungarian adult has gotten the first COVID shot whereas in Bulgaria only around 8 percent of adults have received it, [according to European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control.](https://news.err.ee/1608180409/vaccine-passports-will-end-the-lockdown-but-not-for-everyone)
1.3.5.7. Con: Vaccine passports can be useful for tourists who want to avoid quarantine, but not having one would not outright prevent the unvaccinated from travelling, as they could [still quarantine as an alternative.](https://www.universalweather.com/blog/covid-vaccine-passport-programs-by-country-quarantine-and-testing-exemptions/)(COVID vaccine passport programs exempting travelers from quarantine and, sometimes, testing, are starting to be adopted by countries around the world. Here are the countries currently which currently have vaccine passport programs in place and information on those that are coming soon.)
1.3.5.7.1. Con: Quarantine is not a viable alternative to a vaccine passport as it is very cost prohibitive for the majority of travelers. In Australia for instance, a family of 4 would [owe the government $5,000](https://www.nsw.gov.au/quarantine/fees-and-payment).
1.3.5.7.2. Con: Quarantine is not a viable alternative to a vaccine passport as it is time consuming. For those wishing to get away, being stuck in a government sponsored hotel for two weeks is no way to spend your vacation.
1.4. Con: While getting a vaccine is for the greater good of society, there are people who choose not to get vaccinated. Vaccine passports too should be a choice, not a rule for everyone to follow.
1.4.1. Con: A vaccine passport just shows your vaccination status or date of last negative COVID-19 test. Therefore, if vaccine passports are a choice, they would be a choice for businesses deciding how they'd like to vet their patrons.
1.4.1.1. Con: Given that many entertainment or frontline service roles are filled by [precarious workers](https://www.lco-cdo.org/en/our-current-projects/vulnerable-workers-and-precarious-work/commissioned-papers/precarious-jobs-in-ontario-mapping-dimensions-of-labour-market-insecurity-by-workers-social-location-and-context/v-what-types-of-jobs-are-precarious/)(In contrast, part-time workers in the private sector are most likely to be in precarious jobs, often characterized by low-wages, no pension, and a lack of union coverage. Approximately seven out of every ten part-time, private sector workers are in precarious jobs. Part-time, private sector work was the ‘main job’ of fully 16.1% of workers in 2008 \(a notable percentage since private sector employment overall was the ‘main job’ of 79% of workers\). Given the historically higher levels of precariousness in the private sector, there may be the need for modifications to the existing labour regulations in order to further protect workers in these jobs from less-than-ideal conditions.), it is illegitimate to allow businesses to opt-in or out of checking vaccine passports. These workers are more [vulnerable](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0020731420986694#:~:text=Workers%20trapped%20in%20precarious%20employment,by%20the%20COVID%2D19%20pandemic.&text=All%20told%2C%20ILO%20estimates%20that,by%20the%20end%20of%202020.)(Workers trapped in precarious employment \(PE\), both formal and informal, are among those most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic... PE might be a factor in deterring the control of or in generating new COVID-19 outbreaks.) to infection.
1.4.1.1.1. Pro: The government could limit the opt-in/opt-out option to certain industries with workers at a lower risk for infection and subsequent transmission.
1.4.1.1.2. Pro: In many ways this pandemic is actually a [syndemic](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736\(20\)32000-6/fulltext#:~:text=A%20syndemic%20is%20not%20merely,or%20worsen%20their%20health%20outcomes.)(Writing in The Lancet in 2017, together with Emily Mendenhall and colleagues, Singer argued that a syndemic approach reveals biological and social interactions that are important for prognosis, treatment, and health policy. Limiting the harm caused by SARS-CoV-2 will demand far greater attention to NCDs and socioeconomic inequality than has hitherto been admitted. A syndemic is not merely a comorbidity. Syndemics are characterised by biological and social interactions between conditions and states, interactions that increase a person's susceptibility to harm or worsen their health outcomes.). It would be irresponsible for the government to allow already vulnerable workers, whose vulnerability they are in part responsible for, to be placed in an increasingly precarious situation.
1.4.1.2. Pro: This model would allow more consumer choice, where they assess their risk appetite and attend establishments with regulations that match their stance on vaccine passports.
1.4.2. Pro: Some young people [choose not to get the vaccine](https://www.timesofisrael.com/im-young-i-dont-need-it-ultra-orthodox-non-vaxxers-dig-in-their-heels/) out of fear of unknown long term health impacts. This is important as they are [less likely](https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/03/who-is-getting-sick-and-how-sick-a-breakdown-of-coronavirus-risk-by-demographic-factors/)(Teens and people in their 20s also encounter many others, at school and work and on public transit, yet they don’t seem to be contracting the disease at significant rates: Only 8.1% of cases were 20-somethings, 1.2% were teens, and 0.9% were 9 or younger. The World Health Organization mission to China found that 78% of the cases reported as of Feb. 20 were in people ages 30 to 69.) to face serious health concerns from COVID-19.
1.4.2.1. Con: This manner of thinking is misguided and not backed up by science. For example, pregnant women who have gotten the vaccine [passed the antibodies onto their unborn and newborn babies](https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/03/covid-vaccine-pregnancy-triggers-strong-immune-response-moms-babies), protecting another generation in the process. The vaccine also [does not have any negative impact on fertility](https://www.statnews.com/2021/03/25/infertility-myth-covid-19-vaccines-pregnancy/).
1.4.2.1.1. Con: Long term health impacts could occur 5 to 10 years into the future. No vaccine has been tested for that period of time. Whilst the risk may be minor, it is an unknown risk compared to the known risk of contracting COVID-19 as a young person, so the concern is legitimate.
1.4.2.1.1.1. Con: From a factual- and science-based perspective, these concerns are not legitimate. Just because something is new to the general public does not mean it is unknown; [mRNA vaccines have been in development since the late 1980s](https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/10/the-story-of-mrna-how-a-once-dismissed-idea-became-a-leading-technology-in-the-covid-vaccine-race/), and have been tested in humans for [rabies, influenza, cytomegalovirus, and Zika](https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/89998).
1.4.2.1.1.2. Con: These mRNA vaccines do not have access to the nucleus of the cell \([where DNA is stored](https://sciencing.com/dna-housed-cell-3202.html)\); therefore, they are [unable to enter or alter your DNA](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html). Long-term [health consequences result from alteration of your DNA](https://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/10/chronic-stress) over a given period of time. As mRNA vaccines have no ability to alter your DNA, they are subsequently unable to impact your future health.
1.4.2.1.1.2.1. Con: Not all the vaccines use [mRNA.](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55302595#:~:text=It%20is%20made%20from%20a,to%20fight%20the%20real%20virus.)
1.4.2.1.1.2.1.1. Con: [Less than 8% of all full COVID-19 vaccinations](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1198516/covid-19-vaccinations-administered-us-by-company/) \(counting for two-dose vaccines\) in the US were non-mRNA vaccines.
1.4.2.1.1.2.1.2. Pro: The Oxford Astra-Zeneca, Sputnik V, and Johnson and Johnson are three major [vaccines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccine)(In Phase III trials, several COVID‑19 vaccines have demonstrated efficacy as high as 95% in preventing symptomatic COVID‑19 infections. As of April 2021, 14 vaccines are authorized by at least one national regulatory authority for public use: two RNA vaccines \(Pfizer–BioNTech and Moderna\), five conventional inactivated vaccines \(BBIBP-CorV, CoronaVac, Covaxin, WIBP-CorV and CoviVac\), five viral vector vaccines \(Sputnik Light, Sputnik V, Oxford–AstraZeneca, Convidecia, and Johnson & Johnson\), and two protein subunit vaccines \(EpiVacCorona and RBD-Dimer\). In total, as of March 2021, 308 vaccine candidates are in various stages of development, with 73 in clinical research, including 24 in Phase I trials, 33 in Phase I–II trials, and 16 in Phase III development.), that have been used widely around the [world](https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations), that do not use the mRNA method.
1.4.2.1.1.3. Pro: [Few people who are at high risk for COVID-19 cannot take the vaccine.](https://www.ulh.nhs.uk/content/uploads/2020/12/PHE-vaccine-leaflet.pdf)(A very small number of people who are at risk of COVID-19 cannot have the vaccine – this includes people who have severe allergies to a component in the vaccine. \(pg6\)) This means that the decision to not take the vaccine is less likely to harm [third parties](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability) making it illegitimate to punish people for not taking the vaccine.
1.4.2.1.2. Pro: The majority of vaccine side effects occur within [a few months](https://theconversation.com/how-do-we-know-the-covid-vaccine-wont-have-long-term-side-effects-155714)(The good news is that scientists have already been testing COVID-19 vaccines for months. For starters, serious side-effects are very, very rare. And, together with what we know about previous vaccines, if side-effects are going to occur, they usually happen within a few months after getting a vaccine. This is why international medical regulators, including Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration \(TGA\), require the first few months of safety data before approving new vaccines. This, plus information coming from vaccine recipients in the northern hemisphere, gives us confidence that COVID-19 vaccines are safe.) of being inoculated. It is very unlikely that long term health impacts will arise.
1.4.2.1.2.1. Pro: Where vaccines have known side-effects, young people are offered an [alternative](https://news.sky.com/story/under-40s-to-be-offered-alternative-to-oxford-jab-over-blood-clot-fears-12299219) vaccine type.
1.4.2.2. Pro: The medical stats so far shows that young kids face [less severe COVID-19 symptoms](https://www.aappublications.org/news/2020/03/16/coronavirus031620) compared to older generations. Such information gives the young ones a false sense of security and safety in times of distress.
1.4.2.2.1. Con: The immediate symptoms might be less severe in the younger generation, however, they're more prone to experiencing "[long COVID-19](https://edition.cnn.com/2021/05/05/health/young-people-covid-vaccine/index.html)" consequences, which should act as a nudge for them to take the vaccine.
1.4.2.2.1.1. Con: There's currently little data about the seriousness of long COVID-19, due to [research being in its infancy.](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-problem-of-long-haul-covid/) This makes it harder to persuade young people of the seriousness of the disease.
1.4.2.2.1.2. Pro: Though a fair amount of the evidence regarding long COVID-19 is purely anecdotal, the [seriousness of these long-lasting symptoms](https://edition.cnn.com/2020/07/18/health/long-term-effects-young-people-covid-wellness/index.html) should cause young people to think twice about deciding against getting vaccinated.
1.4.2.3. Con: Though the long term health outcomes of the COVID-19 vaccine are currently unknown, we do know the [outcomes for the elderly who get COVID-19.](https://www.statnews.com/2020/03/03/who-is-getting-sick-and-how-sick-a-breakdown-of-coronavirus-risk-by-demographic-factors/)(The ARDS \[acute respiratory distress syndrome\] patients had an average age of 61, compared to an average age of 49 for those who did not develop ARDS. Elderly patients “were more likely to develop ARDS,” the researchers wrote, suggesting how age can make Covid-19 more severe and even fatal: age increases the risk that the respiratory system will basically shut down under viral assault.) As young people are [more likely to spread than suffer](https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-and-covid-19-younger-adults-are-at-risk-too#:~:text=Can%20young%20people%20get%20coronavirus,high%20blood%20pressure%20\(hypertension\).)(According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention \(CDC\), over the summer, in the United States, people under age 30 accounted for more than 20% of COVID-19 cases and were seen as more likely to transmit the virus than others. This trend has continued into the fall.), it is important to encourage them to be vaccinated.
1.4.2.3.1. Con: -> See 1.4.2.1.1.2.
1.4.2.3.2. Pro: In some countries, like Indonesia, [young people were prioritized to get the vaccination](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/13/young-people-first-indonesias-covid-vaccine-strategy-questioned). They moved about the city at a faster pace and were less likely to stay home when directed; therefore, they were more likely to spread the disease and needed to be vaccinated first.
1.4.2.3.2.1. Con: This strategy goes against conventional and widely accepted medical wisdom. Some accuse Indonesia of [prioritizing the economy over their citizens' lives](https://fortune.com/2021/01/11/covid-vaccine-elderly-young-youth-indonesia-sinovac/) as the elderly are clearly most vulnerable to COVID-19.
1.4.2.3.2.2. Pro: Many [Indonesians are in favor of the policy](https://www.dw.com/en/opinion-indonesias-unorthodox-vaccination-strategy-puts-the-economy-first/a-56383343). The faster they're able to get back to work and jumpstart the stagnant economy, the faster the entire country will be able to recover.
1.4.2.3.3. Pro: -> See 1.4.2.2.1.
1.4.2.3.4. Pro: Even if the effect is minimal, young people can spread COVID-19 [asymptomatically](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03141-3)(Byambasuren’s review also found that asymptomatic individuals were 42% less likely to transmit the virus than symptomatic people.One reason that scientists want to know how frequently people without symptoms transmit the virus is because these infections largely go undetected. Testing in most countries is targeted at those with symptoms.). This means that it is important to be vaccinated, as young people may cause outbreaks without realising it.
1.4.3. Con: It is important to consider harms to other people who cannot get the vaccine, or who [may still contract COVID-19 if vaccinated.](https://theconversation.com/why-vaccines-are-less-effective-in-the-elderly-and-what-it-means-for-covid-19-141971)(A critical factor that makes the elderly more susceptible to infectious diseases is what immunologists call “immunosenescence”: the decline in the immune system’s functionality as people age...Immunosenescence also results in diminished responses to vaccination.) By increasing vaccination rates, the number of COVID-19 cases overall decreases.
1.4.3.1. Con: While the number of cases will eventually decrease, it is important to understand that after the second wave in 2021, more young people were infected. Many became [prone to thinking they'd be better off having the antibodies](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/coronavirus-cases-us-young-people/) for a few months after getting COVID-19, rather than taking the vaccine, especially since the [vaccine doesn't guarantee immunity](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/02/dr-anthony-fauci-says-theres-a-chance-coronavirus-vaccine-may-not-provide-immunity-for-very-long.html) against a second infection down the road.
1.4.3.2. Pro: The lockdowns were put into place to decrease COVID-19 rates. When the governments enforced different time zones for different age groups to be out or go to the stores helped them decrease chances of interaction between the young and the adults. With that sort of a mindset on a macro level, it definitely makes sense for the young people to be vaccinated.
1.4.4. Pro: If vaccines themselves are not mandatory, vaccine passports shouldn't be either.
1.5. Pro: Application of digitized vaccine passports would enable many countries to uplift their technology ecosystems and adopt new ideas such as having passport QR codes or adopting blockchain technology.
1.5.1. Con: Individuals themselves could have some difficulty with digital vaccine passports, especially the elderly or people who are less comfortable with technology.
1.5.1.1. Pro: [Billions of people do not even own a smartphone](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/02/05/smartphone-ownership-is-growing-rapidly-around-the-world-but-not-always-equally/) and would be unable to access or show their vaccine passport in places where it is needed.
1.5.1.1.1. Pro: Many people still rely on printed documents, and it's considered common practice at airports to have printed tickets, boarding passes etc.
1.5.1.2. Con: To avoid such difficulty, the governments could step in and add a feature to their existing digital ID documents which could be scanned anywhere and shows if the person's vaccinated or not, instead of creating a separate vaccine passport altogether.
1.5.1.2.1. Pro: This could save time and resources as it wouldn't require the creation of a new application. By adding a new feature to what already exists, the vaccine passport would be user-friendly and convenient to use.
1.5.1.2.2. Pro: The elderly population would not need to worry about adapting to a new technology as it would be added to their existing documents already.
1.5.1.2.3. Con: A number of countries would have [some degree of difficulty](https://blogs.worldbank.org/digital-development/digital-technologies-and-vaccine-deployment-opportunities-and-challenges) in implementing such swift technological changes. Even just the basic passport chip scanning technologies of some countries are archaic or non-existent. A physical, paper copy of a vaccine passport would likely be necessary.
1.5.1.2.3.1. Pro: The cost of creating, maintaining, and protecting any digital technology is very prohibitive. Some countries could be unwilling or unable to bear the associated costs.
1.5.1.2.3.2. Pro: Bureaucracy in some countries could prevent any digital vaccine passport from being created or accepted. The pace of change in some places is just too slow.
1.5.1.2.3.2.1. Pro: Countries like Venezuela, El Salvador, and Bosnia & Herzegovina all sit at the very bottom of the ["government responsiveness to change"](http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2019.pdf) rankings.
1.5.1.2.3.2.2. Con: Countries like Singapore, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates are all much [more responsive to change](http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_TheGlobalCompetitivenessReport2019.pdf) and would likely be able to move and adopt digital vaccine passports quickly, without government bureaucracy.
1.5.1.2.3.3. Pro: Issues with lagging infrastructure could prevent vaccine passports from being useful. In particular, in countries with poor mobile data coverage, authorities could be slow or unable to access the systems necessary to verify the validity of vaccine passports.
1.5.1.2.3.4. Con: On top of already existing printed material such as covid reports, boarding passes, tickets and all the physical documents that travellers still need to show when they're travelling, adding another set of physical documents for the vaccine passport would simply increase the [carbon footprint which can be avoided to a certain degree](https://carbonfootprintfoundation.com/en/paper-print-vs-digital-carbon-footprint/) by using digital vaccine passports.
1.5.1.2.3.4.1. Con: The [carbon footprint of flying](https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200218-climate-change-how-to-cut-your-carbon-emissions-when-flying#:~:text=The%20same%20calculations%20estimate%20a,41g%20for%20every%20passenger%20mile.) is significantly higher than physically printed documents. They would just be a drop in the bucket compared to the flight itself.
1.5.2. Pro: Dozens of countries introduced "contact-tracing" style apps for users to move about in their communities while mitigating the risk of doing so. These could easily be upgraded or repurposed to give users the ability to quickly and easily show their vaccinated status in any situation.
1.5.2.1. Pro: Upgrading contact-tracing apps would integrate an existing piece of infrastructure and avoid complications from having to develop, secure, and distribute a separate app.
1.5.2.2. Con: While several dozen countries did create apps, the download and usage requirements varied from country to country. To complicate the issue further, many dozens of other countries never even made a contact-tracing app in the first place.
1.5.2.2.1. Pro: Digitally savvy countries like Estonia, Finland and the Nordics might find it easier to build these apps using their eGovernment services. Comparatively, countries like Pakistan, India, and other developing countries might struggle with introducing this new technology to their citizens.
1.5.2.2.1.1. Pro: There's lack of transparency on what exactly is being tracked and how they're doing it with these apps.
1.5.2.2.1.2. Pro: An app made in Estonia will certainly differ in terms of efficiency, speed, and data processing from an app made in Pakistan. This is due to different technological ecosystems in both countries.
1.5.2.2.1.2.1. Con: The rate of efficiency is just one parameter to consider. Effectiveness at beating COVID-19 should be the most important factor to consider - as long as the app helps achieve that goal, all efficiencies are valid.
1.5.2.2.1.2.2. Pro: Differing populations also impact the size of the data set that the app processes and sends to third parties, which could lead to greater risks. For example, Pakistan's population is 200 times the population of Estonia.
1.5.2.2.2. Pro: -> See 1.5.2.2.1.2.2.
1.5.2.3. Con: Contact tracing infrastructure may be minimal as the apps often did not require high numbers of sign ups to be [successful](https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/06/05/1002775/covid-apps-effective-at-less-than-60-percent-download/). This means that the infrastructure may not be useful for vaccine passports. Equally, these apps may be unable to handle the critical mass that would be necessary for successful vaccine passport implementation.
1.5.2.4. Con: -> See 1.2.4.
1.5.2.5. Pro: Integrating vaccine passports into contact tracing apps may encourage more people to download them, increasing the efficacy of contact tracing.
1.5.2.6. Pro: Integrating a vaccine passport in with a contact tracing app may encourage people post-vaccination to still be vigilant about their infection risk. This is because they would still receive reports of potential exposure.
1.5.2.6.1. Con: Contact tracing apps can end up sending a [high number of false reports](https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2021/01/08/medethics-2020-107061) of potential exposure to users, receiving which will cause users to stop taking them seriously.
1.5.2.7. Con: People did not always readily accept contact tracing apps.
1.5.2.7.1. Pro: In South Korea, LGBT+ people sometimes gave fake details fearing [surveillance](https://www.pri.org/stories/2020-05-22/south-korea-s-coronavirus-contact-tracing-puts-lgbtq-community-under-surveillance) and homophobic reprisal.
1.5.2.7.2. Con: In Wuhan, the epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak, citizens were [willing to use intense forms of contact tracing](https://spectrum.ieee.org/biomedical/devices/contact-tracing-apps-struggle-to-be-both-effective-and-private). For example, upon entering a store, shoppers had to exchange their personal barcode with the shop's code and have their temperature taken. The exit procedure involved another exchange of barcodes to note the amount of time spent in each location, down to the second.
1.5.2.7.2.1. Con: The citizens of some countries might not have a choice in the matter, they could be forced to use contact tracing apps if they want to leave the house.
1.5.2.7.2.1.1. Pro: In Hong Kong, all [arriving passengers were given electronic wristbands](https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/18/hong-kong-uses-electronic-wristbands-to-enforce-coronavirus-quarantine.html) to track their movements and ensure they were following quarantine protocols.
1.5.3. Pro: Vaccine passports may have been available since the 15th century, however there are many new developments at this stage, where now companies are talking about developing passports on blockchain where it's easily traceable and genuine.
1.5.4. Con: -> See 1.5.1.2.3.
1.6. Pro: Vaccine passports are not a new concept which may make them easier to implement.
1.6.1. Con: The scale needed for COVID-19 vaccine passports is much larger than typical vaccine passports. This means that new challenges are likely to arise.
1.6.1.1. Pro: Other vaccine passports, like the proof of yellow fever vaccination, are required to enter just a few countries, or when traveling from select other countries; whereas, COVID-19 vaccine passports, if implemented, will become a requirement to enter any and every country on Earth.
1.6.1.2. Pro: COVID-19 vaccine passports would become an immediate universal need, unlike other vaccine passports, which are distributed on an as-needed basis over a lengthy period of time.
1.6.1.2.1. Pro: When proof of yellow fever vaccination cards were implemented, it only affected a select few groups of individuals traveling to at-risk areas. There was not a rush of people overwhelming healthcare systems with demand for yellow fever vaccines and certificates.
1.6.1.2.2. Con: Governments are likely to use vaccine passports in concert with other interventions. Where vaccination rates are low, so too is the need for a vaccine passport. It is not clear that this is a universal need.
1.6.2. Con: Historically, vaccine passports did not have to be as technologically complex, as they were used in fewer instances by fewer people.
1.6.2.1. Con: Historically, vaccine passports were not technologically complex as we lacked the knowledge and ability to make them technologically complex.
1.6.2.1.1. Con: There is no need to make a system technologically complex if it is used minimally. Technological advancements are driven by demand.
1.6.2.1.2. Pro: According to the [Law of Accelerating Changes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_change), technological advancement is not driven by cultural or societal shifts, but rather our iterative capacity for advancement. "[This](https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html) happens because more advanced societies have the ability to progress at a faster rate than less advanced societies—because they’re more advanced."
1.6.2.2. Pro: In the 16th century there were only [0.5 billion people.](https://ourworldindata.org/world-population-growth#:~:text=In%20the%20past%20the%20population,middle%20of%20the%2016th%20century.)(In the past the population grew slowly: it took nearly seven centuries for the population to double from 0.25 billion \(in the early 9th century\) to 0.5 billion in the middle of the 16th century.) Now there are over [7.5 billion.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#:~:text=In%20demographics%2C%20the%20world%20population,more%20to%20reach%207%20billion.)(In demographics, the world population is the total number of humans currently living, and was estimated to have reached 7,800,000,000 people as of March 2020.)
1.6.3. Pro: -> See 1.3.5.1.2.1.2.
1.6.4. Pro: Vaccine passports are rooted in the history of [fedi di sanità.](https://www.historyworkshop.org.uk/venice-plague/)(It \[Venice\] was also among the first states to make use of bollettini or fedi di sanità – health passes that permitted their bearers to travel with the certification that they came from a place free from plague. Initially hand-written and soon printed on small slips of paper, these were among the earliest forms of documentary identification used to facilitate – but also contain – mobility, forerunners of modern passports or identity cards.) These were used to confirm plague free status in the 15th century.
1.6.4.1. Pro: [Ease of printing](http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/123540/1/Bamji%20SHM%20Health%20passes.pdf)(Printed items proliferated in this period, and recent scholarship\nhas shown that ephemeral print could be produced very cheaply, and was often produced in large quantities. \(Pg5-6\)) makes it possible that health passes were widely disseminated.
1.6.4.2. Con: Fedi di sanità were [developed and demanded by the wealthiest states](http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/123540/1/Bamji%20SHM%20Health%20passes.pdf) on the Italian peninsula. Poorer states had no such requirements.
1.6.4.2.1. Pro: While fedi di sanità were used among the wealthy and noble classes, the [poor could seldom get access to such documents](https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/123540/1/Bamji%20SHM%20Health%20passes.pdf)(Print was also used by early modern rulers in their attempts to manage the poor. The poor were categorised as a public health problem because they were associated with disease – including plague – and were thought to pose a danger to the overall health of a city.), as they were viewed as "posing a danger to the overall health of a city."
1.6.4.2.1.1. Con: Some fedi di sanità contained a reference to being [issued](http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/123540/1/Bamji%20SHM%20Health%20passes.pdf)(Health passes were printed forms designed to be completed by hand \(Figure 1\). Typically, printed health passes had four components. First, they had a heading section which usually included one or more of the following: a visual representation of the issuing authority such as a coat of arms; a statement that the health pass had been issued free of charge; a reference to magistrates, officials or others with responsibility for health; a note of the city from where the pass was issued. Second, passes made a printed statement that, thanks to God, the city or territory was free from plague or contagious disease. Third, there were printed words to guide insertion of details about the traveller or travellers and their destination. Fourth, the concluding segment of each pass noted that it was issued in a given location, with printed words to direct the insertion of the date and the name of the issuing authority. \(Pg8\)) free of charge.
1.6.5. Pro: Some vaccines, like the [yellow fever vaccine](https://www.passporthealthglobal.com/en-gb/vaccinations/yellow-fever/)(The majority of travellers do not visit countries where a yellow fever vaccine is required or recommended. However, it is highly recommended or even required for many countries in Africa and the Americas, especially Central and South America.), are currently required for entry to some countries.
1.6.5.1. Con: -> See 1.6.1.1.
1.6.5.2. Con: -> See 1.6.1.2.1.
1.6.5.3. Pro: The process is quite simple and organized from an immigration standpoint. Either you get the yellow fever vaccine and subsequent proof of vaccination, or you don't enter the country that requires it.
1.6.6. Con: Though the [WHO](https://indianexpress.com/article/research/from-smallpox-to-covid-19-the-history-of-vaccine-passports-and-how-it-impacts-international-relations-7274871/)(As of now, the WHO has maintained a stance against Covid vaccine passports citing the risk they pose in perpetuating global inequality, a lack of evidence on vaccine efficacy in terms of herd immunity and the substantial operational challenges that such a system would present.) typically supports vaccine passports, they do not in relation to COVID-19. Amongst other reasons, this is because unlike historic vaccines, there is currently a lack of information about herd immunity and the vaccination.
1.6.6.1. Con: Even if the WHO does not currently support vaccine passports globally, they may be useful on a nation by nation basis.
1.6.6.2. Pro: It seems that herd immunity may be [impossible](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00728-2) to achieve.
1.6.7. Pro: -> See 1.5.3.
1.6.8. Con: Even with historical precedent, diplomatic issues are likely to arise from vaccine passports.
1.6.8.1. Pro: Diplomatic [issues](https://indianexpress.com/article/research/from-smallpox-to-covid-19-the-history-of-vaccine-passports-and-how-it-impacts-international-relations-7274871/)(In 2012, upon arrival in South Africa, 125 Nigerians were denied entry for lacking the required yellow fever vaccination documentation, of which 75 were sent home. The next day, Nigeria barred 28 South Africans from entering the country, and deported another 56 illegal immigrants. When searching through the annals of diplomatic history, examples like these are prevalent. According to a column by Max Fisher in the New York Times, countries tend to act in their own diplomatic interests, even when doing so would contradict logic or compromise morality.) have arisen from the practice of yellow fever vaccine passports.
1.7. Con: Governments may illegitimately curtail civil liberties by using vaccine passports.
1.7.1. Con: Lockdowns curtail civil liberties to a greater extent than vaccine passports as they reduce everyone's choices under a blanket policy.
1.7.1.1. Pro: In places like the Republic of Ireland, regulations have been so strict that people have been [banned](https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus/republic-of-ireland-lockdown-the-rules-exceptions-and-definitions-of-europes-strictest-regime-39645154.html)(People will be permitted to exercise within a radius of 5km \(3.1m\) of their home.\nThere will be a penalty for movement outside 5km of home, with exemptions to this for essential work and essential purposes.) from going more than 5km from their home in the majority of circumstances.
1.7.2. Con: The clinically vulnerable have their choices constrained by the unvaccinated. Vaccine passports keep the former safe. This is good as they have no alternative, whereas those who may be restricted by vaccine passports because they lack vaccinations can opt into a vaccine.
1.7.3. Con: Vaccine passports aren't used for all aspects of life - just those where infection is easier \(gyms\) or crowd numbers are higher \(pubs, cinemas or theatres\). This means that there is a limit to how much your life may be affected without one.
1.7.3.1. Pro: -> See 1.3.2.2.3.
1.7.4. Pro: -> See 1.4.2.1.1.3.
1.7.5. Con: -> See 1.2.3.
1.7.6. Pro: By making it mandatory, we're more likely going to isolate or exclude a certain age group from travelling globally altogether. [Old people are already hesitant towards getting the vaccine](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/14/health/coronavirus-vaccine-elderly.html), lack of exposure to technology might make them more hesitant towards vaccine passports as well.
1.7.6.1. Con: Vaccine passports can be [printed.](https://www.fiercebiotech.com/medtech/new-york-becomes-first-state-to-roll-out-ibm-digital-vaccine-passport)(Users link their vaccination records or negative PCR or antigen test results to the Excelsior Pass app, which then displays a QR code that can be scanned by businesses and event venues. Individuals can also choose to print out the QR code for verification.) This means they are often easily accessible, so lack of technological experience is unlikely to be a barrier to freedom of choice or movement.
1.7.7. Pro: -> See 1.2.4.
1.7.8. Pro: Vaccine passports could create the beginnings of a surveillance state, depending on how much data is collected and how often an individual would be asked to provide their papers.
1.7.8.1. Con: Many believe that the surveillance state is [already](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2020-06-26/the-surveillance-state-is-a-reality) a reality. It is not clear that vaccine passports are likely to worsen this.
1.7.8.2. Con: Vaccine passports may require [less surveillance](https://www.wired.co.uk/article/contact-tracing-apps-coronavirus)(In Taiwan, reports have emerged of people getting visits from the police when they have failed to report their location to authorities.) than successful manual contact tracing. For example, [Israel](https://www.wired.co.uk/article/contact-tracing-apps-coronavirus)(Israel’s spy agency had been tracking the location of the country’s infected until its Supreme Court banned the practice. “The state’s choice to use its preventative security service for monitoring those who wish it no harm, without their consent, raises great difficulties and a suitable alternative must be found,” the court ruled.) was spying on its infected population until the Supreme Court ruled against the activity.